Page 13 of 15 FirstFirst ... 31112131415 LastLast
Results 121 to 130 of 150

Thread: 4 Step Proof for God of the Bible

  1. #121
    Adam Guest

    Default

    I give you 5 infractions - tell me how comparing me to a rapist, and saying i deserve to be tortured forever because I disagree with you is courteous, and you think I'm the bad guy - what sort of Christian are you....if you can't see how that's wrong.....

    It does give me a certain comfort knowing you will spend an eternity in Hell, just as it would for a woman who was raped knows her attacker is going to spend the rest of his life in prison. Hell is proven, because obviously God can't let you be with those who love Him. Since you have to go some place, this proves Hell's existence. You're equating human physical torture to the kind of torture you will spend in eternity. I think that is an inaccurate comparison and naive. One is in the physical realm, the other is in the spiritual realm. One has fire that goes out. The other has fire that never stops burning. It's the fire of judgment of your choice to be eternally separated from your Creator. Nothing could be more asinine! Since you will reject Jesus Christ for eternity, in the same way I would not want to let that rapist out of jail, because he won't change his ways. God is perfectly justified in sending you to Hell and never let you out. You're a bad guy.

  2. #122
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    I have been using a spell checker. Do not give me infractions for things you are guilty of too - it's not fair [pm]. You gave me an infraction for formatting whilst I was writing a post and now It's lost : ( If you don't want to talk anymore just say so.
    I don't have that many spelling mistakes as I use the spell checker.

    I do want you to talk, why think otherwise? May you come to Christ so you won't go to Hell, but receive the eternal blessings God wants you to have.

    There is no reason why you should lose a post except your own carelessness. I didn't remove any of your posts, so you're just sinning bearing false witness. Giving you an infraction doesn't cause a problem, for you should always copy your post before sending it because it could time out or like you said, you could get an infraction if you had done something wrong.

    How about you stop yelling that I'm going to Hell - is that what you consider conscientious and thoughtful
    Hell is part of the gospel. Jesus spoke on Hell more than anyone else. Are you accusing Him of being a liar? He created you. This is very conscientious and thoughtful. To say nothing about it is unconscientious and unthoughtful, and to try to prevent it is shutting your mind down so you can engorge in your sin nature and deny the atonement, for forgiveness of sins so God can reconcile you back to Him and so you can come to God with a new heart and a new spirit and a cleansed conscience.

    You most certainly are going to Hell. It is a reflection of your character and the kind of person you are. You would rather be eternally separated from God. So be it. That is your choice.

  3. #123
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    I give you 5 infractions - tell me how comparing me to a rapist, and saying i deserve to be tortured forever because I disagree with you is courteous, and you think I'm the bad guy - what sort of Christian are you....if you can't see how that's wrong.....
    I have just told you the truth, my courtesy to you. You are a bad guy. You are going to spend an eternity in Hell because that is what you want. You send yourself there. Hypothetically, if Hitler was born-again (which he is not, of course), he would be considered a better person than you, because he would have accepted the loving sacrifice to reconcile him back to God. No matter how sinful a person is they can still be saved if they are willing, before they leave their body of flesh and blood. That is how immense God is. But you stand their pompously, so proud and think you are a better than a rapist even though you are both going to spend an eternity in Hell, for calling Jesus and the eyewitness Apostles liars when you have no reason for doing so other than your own disobedience, independency and hostility towards your Creator. God is eternally greater than you and there must be an eternal solution to your sickness which only God Himself can satisfy in His only begotten Son. Jesus takes all your sins and all the sins of the world upon Himself. He created you and wants a relationship with you, but you cut Him as though you kill Him all over again. This really reflects upon the kind of person you are. I am just glad I don't have to spend an eternity with someone like you.

    Praise the Lord! That is how loving God is!

  4. #124
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    Do not give me infractions to stifle discussions for among other things spelling mistakes, and being discourteous- I am frequently telling you that you will go to Hell?
    When you had that many spelling mistakes it stifles the discussion which is discourteous, just like I had to give an infraction again, because in this thread you posted, your quote boxes are all messed up. Stop being in such a rush. Why be in such a rush, after all, you are going to spend an eternity in Hell? The flesh is in such a rush, not realizing that it must die on the cross with Christ to not give Satan anything to work through in you. God wants your old man to die on the cross so you have the power to put to naught the deeds of your flesh. But you are unwilling as you cling desperately to that flesh: the sin of your body and self of the soul.

    If our discussion is making you uncomfortable, we can stop. Don't do it through infractions.
    Infractions are give for the sole reason the infraction was given for; don't try to make it into something else because of your own negligence. That's immature. As you can see through these forums, I engage the discussion and continue to do so. It sounds perhaps like you are projecting your own uncomfortableness because you are not standing on solid ground and are unable to disprove the 4 Step Proof for God and Minimal Facts Approach for Jesus being God.

    1. Don't be a false accuser!For example, accusing people of copying and pasting or plagiarizing on discussion forums as an excuse to avoid the issue is utterly vain and shallow.

    3. Show extra care.

    4. No doubletalk. Don't contradict yourself.

    5. Overassuming.

    6. Respond specifically. When discussing with others, respond directly, specifically and courteously,repetitive self-declarations expose the weakness of an argument in trying to deflect and circumvent the issue

    7. Stop being antiApostle.

    8. Repent before rejoining or posting again

    9. No frivolousness

    10. Be cordial.
    Amen. These are valid infractions. What's the problem?

    To me the words supernatural and magic are equivalent - or as you would put it the supernatural is "thinly veiled" magic - as both are explanations that claim to be other than physical explanations.
    Where did I say supernatural is thinly veiled magic? That's sinning bearing false witness. I said agnosticism is thinly veiled atheism since the proof is given God exists and you can't overturn it in your own mind. You need to get a conscience and stop sinning this sin. Magic is a physical explanation, because it is just a trick. Whereas supernatural of the kind we are speak of, is the uncreated Creator. It's not that hard to understand.

    This is a fairly good summary of how this argument is used incorrectly
    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
    My point again is obviously there have been enough "interatomic interactions" as evidenced by the fact that cells exist. Or as you might say
    You're still missing the point. Humans do not know how to bring about this first single-celled replicating organism and mathematically no matter how you mix the stirring pot of all the elements of the universe, the probability is zero. Therefore, it requires a divine intervention. Cells existing is not evidence that nature did it all by itself. That is your mindless assumption and goes contrary to the evidence of all the interatomic interactions that have ever existed which could not bring out the simplest single-celled life form that could begin replicating. Think about that. What great faith you have, but faith that is without any foundation. The statistical improbability still remains a fact no matter how simple the life form is, it still cannot happen based on all math calculations we know of. All things have a cause and effect which this writer attests to, so nothing is really random. Therefore, he is admitting all things in nature have a cause, so the universe can't cause itself or come into being from nothing. Therefore, the cause must be that which is uncaused. Taking it all in a big stirring pot and letting it do what it wants, still it can't bring together the simplest life form.

    I myself do not know the specifics of how, but it's worth learning.

    What matters is mathematically, man will never know how to create the first single-celled replicating living organism, as there are some things God reserves for Himself. Even if man could, it was at the hand of man's intelligence, showing an intelligent designer is required, since these elements can't come together on their own to create the first single celled organism. No matter how you look at it, you lose. You are going to Hell.

    I haven't laid down my chips on a number - and if i did I'd make sure the number was in the game.

    Oh but you have laid down your chips on a number and that chip is you have to be God to know if God exists. That's your claim. Even if the number were in the game, you would have no reason to bet on it, because of the preponderance of evidence when you spin the wheel, you will likely not land on that number, but trillions of other numbers which show cause and effect in nature. You should go with the evidence if you were honest with yourself. It seems to me your sole purpose is to disprove God come Hell or Highwater. So be it. Do you have issues with your parents, because you said you were raised in a Christian family? Can we talk about what exactly your parents teach and what they consider to be Christianity and how they have treated you with their faith? I believe that is the real issue.

    The universe doesn't need to "account for itself", you think it couldn't have always existed - because of "heat death" isn't that meant to be a possible end through entropy - what if there was a mechanism by which it was reversed that you're not aware of? the exponential progression of conscience is a silly idea unrelated physics.

    The universe does have to account for itself, for if you are willing to investigate abiogenesis (which has been proven false) why do you shut your mind down to the accountability of the universe? Seems like a doublestandard. There is no end in entropy, just dissipation. Scientists are firmly agreed there is only exponential expansion and no implosion. The dark energy is pushing out the dark matter and matter at a faster rate than they are gravitating in. The is universally accepted. Plus, the cycles theory is self-contradictory because it assumes an eternity of the past of cycles, so you worship an idol of cycles, but don't ask yourself where the cycles come from, for how can they just pop into existence all by themselves? So the evidence remains, heat death and the exponential progression of conscience disallow an eternity of the past of cause and effects. This is the related evidence. Don't shut your mind down to it.

    Your responses and dismissals have been flawed - just because you dismiss them does not make my observations false.

    If they are flawed then repeat the flaw. Don't be coy. When I respond I don't just dismiss, but show you how your idea is false. Please respond in kind instead of being coy. Your coyness exposes the weakness of your argument so you have to make claims without backing them up.

    The things i have said have at least as much merit as your pronouncements. I shown you reasons to doubt the proof and resurrection- whether you choose to abide by it is immaterial to the truth.

    Nothing you have said has any merit. Your points fall flat on their head every time. Your attempt at doubt are shown logically invalid. Always read my immediate response to each of your issues.

    If it was proof you would not require trust.

    You do require trust because the proof is so strong. You should trust the evidence. Especially when you have nothing to counter that evidence. And that evidence shows us you are going to Hell. I trust it, because I can't disprove the proof just as you can't. We both fall prey to the evidence.

    It requires you to believe in resurrection - which you justify through God.
    You supposedly prove eternity - by talking about morals - which you believe exist because of God.
    The resurrection comes from the evidence. The resurrection leads to the conclusion God exists just as the fact that nature can't cause itself shows us the uncreated exists.

    You are getting the cart before the horse. Because we know objective morals exist and objective morals can't exist without an objective source and nature itself is void of objective morals; therefore, the source is God who has perfect objective morality. There are no other candidates.

    can you see the circle reasoning above?

    No, you don't show it. Since the resurrection occurred and it can't happen naturally, therefore, it was achieved supernaturally, leading to believe in God who is supernaturally uncaused. This is not complicated. A young child can know God exists, for He is not far from any of our hearts.

    Is it not a story, in a book? Paul existed - I agreed

    These are real people living real lives in real events. It's not a story. Why think so? Your assumptions are brutal and they are killing. No scholar I know of uses your approach.

    And your basing this trusting testimony?
    Yes. But for a reason. The multiple corroboration of people saying they believed in seeing Jesus resurrected physically and dying for that claim is trustworthy. That's why almost all skeptical scholars agree the disciples at the very least truly believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead. Not that they actually did, but they believed they did. Now you have to find a naturalistic explanation, and since you can't find any, you should give your life to Christ, because that is the overwhelming implication.

    Yes there is - it's called CPR : )
    CPR doesn't bring a person back to life. When the brain is dead it is dead. No amount of blood flow can getting it functioning again. It's like cutting off your arms and asking you to wave your arms. It's impossible naturalistically.

    The data is something other than people supposedly seeing it, or believing it on hearsay? Good, the resurrection isn't true because it didn't happen - that's the only plausible natural explanation.

    The data is people don't die for something they know to be a lie, so they truly believed they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. It is not hearsay, but they themselves wrote they saw Jesus alive from the dead in multiple different group settings, multiply attested. Saying it didn't happen doesn't explain what they said they saw. I mentioned group hallucinations being impossible because modern psychology says no such thing has ever been recorded in human history.

    Well I imagine if you were God you would think of something convincing, a big flying bearded giant with magic tricks, that knows everything - might be a good start for convincing people.

    That seems goofy. I would be more inclined to think such a thing is an evil entity, but that makes sense that you would accept it as being God, because you worship Satan. Satan has been around millions if not billions of years, so he certainly could give the appearance he knows everything. Plus, you admit he is only using magical tricks which depend on natural laws. Man can do magic tricks. Your very best suggestion, therefore, fails. I propose that nothing would convince to accept the One True God which is why you are going to Hell. You're a bad guy. God will let you have your way, to spend an eternity in Hell. Your wish is your command.

    And after your "heat death" there will be zero sins therefore proving your theory. How sinful was the universe when humans didn't exist?

    Sinfulness requires a conscience. The universe doesn't have a conscience. It is simply matter without sentient thinking. Though I agree heat death would remove sins if it removed all human life, I am not claiming heat death exists, only that if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects heat death would have occurred by now. So you are mixing proofs inaccurately. How absurd the atheist arguments get in rationalizing their assumptions. It just goes to show you can rationalize anything, but it just looks goofier and goofier without giving into the evidence. Sin begets sin.

    That graph doesn't seem exponential anymore does it?
    The general trend is still exponential. Don't get caught up in the noise.

    What does "progression of conscience" happen out of, what causes it do you think?

    God's sufficient enabling grace towards His plan in mind. Satan's goes in completely the opposite direction.

    Hang on did you just say GOD is in Step 1 of the Proof.....
    God is proven in Step of the Proof, yes.

    Well obviously if the mechanism is also God, that's a fairly large logical flaw - one I doubt even you could dismiss....don't pretend you don't know why. Maybe you can think of another way of justifying why the universe isn't eternal - but the Proof would remain flawed.

    I know why. Because God wants the sinless New City and New Earth with His people as pillars of the New City. He will be the center of the New City-as God and the Lamb and we shall see His one face. No need for a temple because God and the Lamb will be the temple. Know the exponential progression of conscience is true even though you don't understand the mechanism God uses. So the proof remains unchallenged.

    Lots of things have causes, therefore everything has a cause - No.

    Is there a preponderance of evidence for resurrection or "an uncreated creator" - No.
    What's your evidence that this creator wasn't created "supernaturally" - besides stating it's impossible. - Nothing.

    Step 1 it remains flawed. Step 2 remains illogical.
    The preponderance of evidence is trillions of things have a cause, there is no evidence for something without a cause in nature; therefore, it is reasonable to conclude all things in nature require a cause like that guy in that link you gave said. You are not agreeing with your fellow atheists.

    The evidence for the uncreated created is perfect, that nothing in nature can happen all by itself. Since you can't find a naturalistic explanation for the resurrection, you admit Jesus is God.

    Step 4 addresses your concern of gods creating gods, for Step 1 still applies, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does and there would be heat death.

    Ergo, Step 1 & 2 remain unchallenged, as well as Step 4.

    I can "fathom" alternatives - you should be able to as well.
    I can't nor have you been able to either. Surely, you would have done so by now if you could. Your coyness exposes you got nothing.

    No, and even if they did everyone believing something does not make it true. Like Christians believing the earth the center of the universe.
    The common human condition through the millennia of believing in what they call God should cause you to give consideration. The Bible doesn't teach anything about the center of the universe as most people did when it was written. Rather the Bible tells of a guy in a ship looking off across the horizon could see the curvature of the earth, similar to when you stand at the top of a building looking across the landscape it does have curvature. As the ship goes across the ocean, objects get cut off.

    Something else - like the truth? or being honest enough to admit when we don't know everything. It is not an approach, you can call it arrogant or pompous but you have not once told me why it's untrue, yet you agree it makes proof of God impossible - which makes you an agnostic.
    We don't need to know everything to know God exists, otherwise you would have to be God, and that is a mindless arrogant stance to take. It's pompous false humility. Even science doesn't do science that way. Your theory is untrue because you are claiming you have to be God to know if God exists, but obviously, you are not God. Have you always existed? Do you have awareness you always existed? Of course not. To claim so, would indicate your pompous narcissism. But that is exactly what you are holding out for. Since I believe the preponderance of evidence (trillions and trillions and trillions of causes) is a final telling, nothing could convince me God doesn't exist. I believe if man lived a trillion years more still as man approached the knowledge of eternity (which he could never ultimately have), still he would never be able to prove something happened all by itself or the universe always existed (due to heat death and exponential progression of conscience). All I am saying is if you could you could disprove God, but since you can't and the evidence is so overwhelming, it's a done deal! And so this is how I know you are going to Hell.

    It's not about coming to God - it's just about being honest.
    Since God is fully proven, an honest heart entails coming to God.

    And so one would tend to assume there is a facet of nature that is unknown, or not understood - not outside of all physical things - a ridiculous, meaningless, illogical assumption.
    There is always something in nature that is unknown, but everything in nature is nature always presenting a cause. That's all we have evidence for, so to hold out for something else you don't even know what it is, is being mindless. Let the evidence guide you, not your fanciful vague projections. Since nature can't cause itself, the cause is uncaused. That's why the leading and most published Atheist of the 20th century, Antony Flew, could no longer hold to Atheism. He is now a theist. It is morally bankrupt. Gary R. Habermas convinced him.

    There are some alternative explanations even so, our knowledge and objective reality are separate - I think you will agree with this point - so even the absence of an alternative explanation - does not rule out the possibility of one.

    Our knowledge is part of objective reality. You can say to yourself, I think therefore I am. You objectively exist. You've presented no alternative explanations. You're just being coy at this point which is mindless. That is the nature of atheism. It is for dullards. A reasoned person does not waste his life hoping for something else contrary to the evidence. Rather, he goes with the evidence, belief in God and Jesus is God for salvation and eternal life, and continues to learn about things as a new creation of God.

    Maybe you are going to my version of Hell - I call it irrationality - it makes you a prisoner in your own mind.

    Since you couldn't show any irrationality on my part, that must mean you are being irrational, and that is part of your existence in Hell for eternity calling Jesus a liar and God a liar without any evidence for your claim. That is insanity! I would not wish this upon my worse enemy. What a horrible and unpleasant existence that you have a foretaste of even now. Your heaven is "my" which has been proven false. To Christians it is Hell.

    Can, have, and will continue too. I still don't know how you can consider it an impossibilty if you are being reasonable.
    Where? Reasonably you could not counter the evidence.

    One of many lists you can find simply by searching for "biblical contradictions"
    http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...istencies.html
    Yes, we can talk about alleged consistencies, which scholars have answered all of them to show there are no inconsistencies, but remember the proof I am using, the Minimal Facts Approach which does not depend on the inerrancy of the Scriptures, but treats it as any other historical text to see using historical requirements what facts we can glean from it.

    How do Christian scholars answer such contradictions?
    It may not be a wide difference - but it is a difference - how do you choose which one is right?
    Who chooses which books are canonical?
    When the scholar answers an alleged contradiction, if it is feasible, you must give him the benefit of the doubt. Since the Christian has the Holy Spirit and you have the evil spirit, you would have to concede his logical explanation since it fits and is plausible. The Holy Spirit chooses the 66 books, but man just abides in that proof and can show why other books don't belong. Before you allege a contradiction, if you don't find out what Christian scholars say about it, then you didn't do your homework, like that author did in that link you provided since he doesn't state the Christian response. So he is unthinking.

    No, basic chemical "life" has been created in labs.
    It's not the case at all. You probably just heard a rumor. Scientists still can't create a single celled replicating life out of raw materials. If it was done it would be the greatest discovery of all time and it would be on the news, man can create life from raw materials and replicate it to create human beings with a spirit, soul and body. You don't appreciate how mindless your assumptions are.

    Only if you're correct, there is no reason to believe you are. so your self aggrandising statements don't bother me.
    Aren't your statements self-aggrandising when you say there is no reason to believe when you haven't found a way to overturn the fact that nature always has a cause? And you still can't find a naturalistic explanation to account for the resurrection claims. I have told you the truth what the evidence is, so how is that self-aggrandising?

    Prove it. Actually don't it's irrelevant to our discussion.
    At this point I realize I have to give you infractions because you keep saying to prove it after the proof is given and you don't respond to the proof, but just keep saying to prove it. That's mindless belligerency. You can't ask me to prove the proof. The proof is the proof. The proof is relevant. It is the proof. Don't try to be couth for it shows you are desperate.

    Prove It - You have not, and cannot.
    It was proven with trillions of causes and you can't find one thing without a cause in nature. The odds are so overwhelming against you, it's like you are playing a lottery with odds against you more than a trillion to one and hoping you land the winning number. You're killing my brain cells.

    Sure you did.....I believe you.....
    So what's the problem?

    My ability or inability to communicate does not change what is true - I have shown it is illogical, and so unpersuasive. It also does not encompass proof of the premises assumed - or you would not have required further explanation - you would simply refer back to the proof.

    You have shown it illogical and unpersuasive how? You don't say. What assumption exists, you don't say. Giving you the details of the proof don't change the basic 4 Steps and the Minimal Facts Approach. These aren't explanations of explanations. Rather, all the details we are discussing are just details, not explanations of explanations. For example, Rev. 6 to 11 give the major points of end-times. Whereas Rev. 12 to 22 give the details of those major points. Likewise, Genesis 2 gives the details of Genesis 1.

    Your "evidence" isn't evidence - that is my excuse, and quiet a good one.

    But you don't say why it is not evidence. Just saying so is not a counter-evidential approach, as you admit your self-declaration is just an excuse, not reality. An excuse is, therefore, not good, but bad. You're a bad guy. Your theology or world-view is just a reflection of your evil nature and self-worship.

    Your continued insistence that your belief is rational, rather than based on blind faith - the type where you deny it is faith? is aptly explained by yourself
    The evidences were given which I don't know how to overturn and you weren't able to either, so the only difference is I go where the evidence leads, but you shut your mind down to it.

    Atheism denies the possibility of God/s or the supernatural, through reasoned argument.
    What reasoned argument? You don't present any.

    Agnostics claim that it is not possible to prove or disprove the existence of God/d either way because they are outside the domain logic and the physical world.
    Agnostics believe that God could exist but they feel they don't have enough evidence either way. What you are describing is neither agnosticism nor atheism, but something else. It though is wrong too, for there is no reason why you can't use logic and a physical world to prove God exists as God says this is in fact how you prove His existence by observing nature. What's important to note here is that you provide no means to know if God exists, showing you how closed minded you are. Its interesting you are contradicting yourself when you say logic and nature can't prove God exists, but you try to use logic and nature to prove God doesn't exist. That seems inherently contradictory. What it is is a doublestandard. If logic and nature can't prove God exists then it can't disprove God's existence either.

    See how these words have distinct meanings?
    I don't know any agnostics who claim your definition of agnosticism. You are going to have to invent a word for you ideationalism that there is no way to prove God exists using logic and reason and nature. There is no evidence for your theory. Thankfully, a personal God reveals Himself personally though His resurrection and by knowing nature can't cause itself, so the uncreated must exist. Praise the Lord!

    Both are the same in that they do not claim to be able to prove God - which is your claim as what would be called an evidentialist
    - as opposed to Fideists - who may be both believers by choice and agnostics.
    Agnostics claim you could prove God if God exists, but that they just don't think they have any evidence one way or another, not yet. Of course there is no excuse for this false teaching, since God is proven in nature and by the resurrection.

    A fideist is not agnostic, for a fideist has committed himself to God and knows God exists intuitively. Most believers are born-again just this way and only later discover the natural proofs such as the argument from objective morality or fine-tuning, etc.

    God of the Bible says you can know Him both by observing nature (and proof of resurrection) as well as through intuitive revelation as spirit makes contact with spirit. I was born-again through intuitive revelation that all things summed up in Christ and one grows in the faith they come to various proofs as observed in The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology (2009) edited by William Lane Craig and J.P. Moreland.

    Am I cold and dead - by your logic? : )
    Yes, you come across as a dullard in every way. Your spirit is dead to God. In the Bible dead means separation. You are separated from God's life. You have no relationship with God and despise the love of God. What else can God do but send you to Hell? You're a bad guy by your own volition that is what you want. You want to remain that way.

    I didn't think this was about me converting to Christianity - but meeting your challenge to find fault with the proof.
    Why do they have to be mutually exclusive? When you realize you can't disprove the proof for God, you're left with the only reasonable choice to give your life to Christ. You should repent of your sins and come to the cross as a helpless sinner to receive the Lord Jesus as Savior and God will save you. You yourself can't convert to Christianity for it is God who does the saving. You are saved by grace through faith.

    "What must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved" (Acts 16.30-31). "We have also obtained access by faith into this grace" (Rom. 5.2), "for by grace are ye saved through faith" (Eph. 2.8). Faith comes before salvation (regeneration). Paul repeatedly says, the sinner is "justified by faith" (Rom. 5.1) not by regeneration since faith precedes regeneration.

  5. #125
    kwikee Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    I believe they are the deeper Muslims based on text of the Koran and other important Muslim texts.
    Nowhere does it say you're allowed to commit suicide for the sake of killing infidels. Your perfect proof states this as an example of human sacrifice. Yes, the Qur'an and Hadith mention KILLING infidels, but not suicide bombing-- as I said before, your mention of it in your perfect proof is absolutely incorrect. It's source for the reference to suicide bombings in the link you gave is not even cited.

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    They don't exist. There are over 800 factors we know of that require life to exist on another planet. When factored into all the planets in the universe, there is no chance of aliens.
    God could make aliens, God can do anything, can't he? Extraterrestrial life means life not on this planet. By definition, angels and devils can be called aliens. As I said before, the Bible provides examples of what could have wrote the Bible.

    As for your 800 factors, if you really insist on using numbers than try this. There are 200 to 400 billion stars in this galaxy. There's a photo called Hubble Deep Field which depicts something like 1:500,000th of the sky and contains almost 3000 galaxies. 200,000,000,000 x 3000 x 500,000 -- with that many stars you don't believe there could be another planet like Earth?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    Not at all. Jesus died on the cross in the Bible, and some guy in a cave all by himself six centuries later said He didn't. Historians examine primary sources.
    I didn't mean that the Qur'an and Bible say the same thing exactly, but they say a lot of the same things. The Qur'an believes that part about Jesus being God and not a prophet of God like Muhammad was a man-made change. I meant they both read like holy books and teach many similar things. Besides, muslims like to give the example that Muhammad was illiterate, and therefore would not have known all of the biblical stories repeated in the Bible. The story of Muhammad's life is far better documented and more widely accepted as fact than Jesus' very existance. Even if what he was saying is false, it's at least known how and when and to whom he said it in great detail. Wasn't the Bible not even written as a first-hand account? Did the authors themselves see the empty cave?


    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    We can take some things to be true because almost all skeptical scholars accept them (for good reason): 1) Jesus died on the cross, 2) disciples believed they saw Jesus alive from the dead physically, 3) Paul was converted because he believed he saw Jesus resurrected, 4) James, half-brother of Jesus, was converted after believing he saw Jesus resurrected, 5) the tomb was empty. No naturalistic theory can account for all 5 facts.
    Here are two theories that account for those facts. 1) Jesus wasn't human or was revived by some superhuman being that does not necessarily have to be God. Or 2) None of that ever really happened and it was all made up by whomever authored the Bible.

    Are there sources outside of the Bible or Qur'an that say it happened?

    Quote Originally Posted by Churchwork View Post
    The Bible not does the 4 Step Proof claim this. The definition of sin being used is the dictionary definition without any mention of God.
    Webster's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

    1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

    Oxford's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

    noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.

    Divine Law sounds like mention of God, the secondary, godless definitions of the word clearly derived from the primary definitions. So without Divine Law given from God there is no Sin and my argument stands.

    You did not touch upon my main argument at all. My agnosticism is still solidly grounded upon said argument.

    - Azim Khan

  6. #126
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kwikee View Post
    Nowhere does it say you're allowed to commit suicide for the sake of killing infidels. Your perfect proof states this as an example of human sacrifice. Yes, the Qur'an and Hadith mention KILLING infidels, but not suicide bombing-- as I said before, your mention of it in your perfect proof is absolutely incorrect. It's source for the reference to suicide bombings in the link you gave is not even cited.
    Suicide bombings is killing others. Therefore, the burden would be on you to show blowing yourself up for Allah is not allowed.

    God could make aliens, God can do anything, can't he? Extraterrestrial life means life not on this planet. By definition, angels and devils can be called aliens. As I said before, the Bible provides examples of what could have wrote the Bible.
    Angels are in heaven and the fallen angels are in 2nd heaven. Not another planet. Life can't exist on another planet because the laws of nature prohibit it with over 800 factors making it impossible.

    As for your 800 factors, if you really insist on using numbers than try this. There are 200 to 400 billion stars in this galaxy. There's a photo called Hubble Deep Field which depicts something like 1:500,000th of the sky and contains almost 3000 galaxies. 200,000,000,000 x 3000 x 500,000 -- with that many stars you don't believe there could be another planet like Earth?
    The calculations done by Hugh Ross suggest even more than that, and plugging his 800 variables make life on another planet impossible.

    I didn't mean that the Qur'an and Bible say the same thing exactly, but they say a lot of the same things. The Qur'an believes that part about Jesus being God and not a prophet of God like Muhammad was a man-made change. I meant they both read like holy books and teach many similar things. Besides, muslims like to give the example that Muhammad was illiterate, and therefore would not have known all of the biblical stories repeated in the Bible. The story of Muhammad's life is far better documented and more widely accepted as fact than Jesus' very existance. Even if what he was saying is false, it's at least known how and when and to whom he said it in great detail. Wasn't the Bible not even written as a first-hand account? Did the authors themselves see the empty cave?
    The Koran says Jesus is just a prophet, not God. That's all the difference in the world. I have a total of 45 early sources on Jesus. How many do you have on Muhammad? The Bible was written by firsthand accounts. Why think otherwise? The disciples ran to the cave, yes. You're searching but you're not finding any holes. Keep searching.

    Here are two theories that account for those facts. 1) Jesus wasn't human or was revived by some superhuman being that does not necessarily have to be God. Or 2) None of that ever really happened and it was all made up by whomever authored the Bible.
    Jesus said He was God, so that would make Jesus a liar. That would mean He lied to the disciples and the disciples were deceived by this evil god. That's called gnosticism in which God is the creator but allowed an evil creator to create this universe and humanity. But all you need to do is ask ask yourself would a loving God do that? Would a loving God allow God-consciousness in our spirits knowing we were created by an evil spirit? That would, in fact, make God evil to allow that, therefore, you theory is self-contradictory.

    On your second theory, there were 40 authors over 1500 years and no critical scholars go the route these individuals didn't exist and in Scripture, there are many, not just the original 12 Apostles, but many other people mentioned in all kinds of places and situations. There is just too much multiple corroboration. Early first century church fathers, Clement of Rome and Polycarp, knew Peter and John. The church fathers recorded the martyrdom of the Apostles. It's one thing such as a Joseph Smith to make up stuff or Muhammad to make up stuff, but when you get all these writers in the New Testament in agreement and fellowshipping together confirming each other's thoughts and eyewitness testimony to ensure they have the right gospel, your theory seems silly and fanciful. Enemy attestation by the Jews don't even try your approach. Nobody even suggested your ideas in the first several centuries.

    Are there sources outside of the Bible or Qur'an that say it happened?
    Yes, these outside sources all well documented and claim Jesus died on the cross and that followers of Jesus believed they saw Him resurrected such as Josephus.

    Webster's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

    1 a: an offense against religious or moral law b: an action that is or is felt to be highly reprehensible <it's a sin to waste food> c: an often serious shortcoming : fault a: transgression of the law of God b: a vitiated state of human nature in which the self is estranged from God

    Oxford's Dictionary Definition of Sin:

    noun 1 an immoral act considered to violate divine law. 2 an act regarded as a serious offence.
    "1. a. offense against moral law [e.g. society]. 2. Serious offence." I prefer "acquiescence to temptation."

    Divine Law sounds like mention of God, the secondary, godless definitions of the word clearly derived from the primary definitions. So without Divine Law given from God there is no Sin and my argument stands.
    You gave two primary definitions without mention of God. I am not disputing some of the dictionary definitions say sin is transgressions of God's law. But you shouldn't deny the other definitions that don't make mention of God.

    You did not touch upon my main argument at all. My agnosticism is still solidly grounded upon said argument.

    - Azim Khan
    I touched upon all your points. Why think otherwise? Unless you can show it. Your agnosticism has no foundation, since nature can't cause itself, so it requires that which is uncaused. Pretty simple.

  7. #127
    Adam Guest

    Post Final Reply

    Really Troy banning me for False Teaching - 'Agnostic' - after inviting people to debate the proof for God seems sort of contradictory.
    (Thankyou for allowing editing it is very useful)

    In the course of your many debates about this "proof" I am sure you have become familiar with the term "Special Pleading."

    (for readers: http://www.conservapedia.com/Special_pleading)

    This is usually where rational argument ends and belief and wishful thinking begin. This is the reason why the proof is not convincing to a non-believer, since they come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to.

    For example, though I am happy to assume that the universe is not eternal for the sake of argument, the mechanism you suggest for proving it includes the idea of sin, which though you may not think so - is an exclusively religious idea, different from that of 'crime'. Also the mechanism you suggest, by your own admission is not explained by physical means alone - but by the intervention and plan of God. This would obviously invalidate the claim in the proof that it proves God from the physical alone, and also including the conclusion in the premises is a grievous error in any argument.

    Another example of this is in Step 2. Without justification there is no reasonable basis for leaping to the conclusion that your creator needs to be the biblical God. As I have stated Testimony claiming Jesus as supernatural is not a form of physical proof. Claiming that God is uncreated - though you believe it and it is written in the Bible, is also not a form of physical proof - saying it is so because it is a must - is again - special pleading and not rational or logical argument.

    These are two very good reasons why a non-believer will not consider your proof persuasive - since it requires them to already believe in some of the circular logic. Circular reasoning once accepted forms an unbroken loop where the end is also the beginning, whilst proper logical reasoning creates lines of reasoning and argument which encourages further investigation down an open line of enquiry. Such enquiry, especially scientific enquiry and logic are rules that help us from erring, and although they prevent one from finding the degree of certainty, that religions do choosing to follow these strictures gives one the sense that you are pursuing truth, even if it is unattainable in an absolute form.

    Steps three and four I feel do not add to the argument - but like your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. It seems to me that you are not truly interested in the logical rigor, or verisimilitude of the proof - which you would be if you considered the best way to be tenacious in your beliefs. It seems to me now that the proof and its posting is only a gambit, if this is so you need to work on your reply if you want a chance at winning the game. It is not enough to simply knock down all the pieces with a swipe of your hand as my small sister once did - by giving in to frustration you lose both the opportunity and joy of learning and mastery through practice and consideration.

    Also you have still failed to deal with the issue of cause and effect. Like gravity which we still call the 'Universal Law' of gravitation, Cause and Effect is not universal, as you claim. I can state that trillions of things everywhere are affected by gravity in a particular and quantifiable way. This would lead us to infer that it is the same everywhere - yet then we discover the exception and know that gravity is not universal as we thought it was - It merely described our lesser understanding of the universe at the time. Cause and effect is the same - the law is not immutable - and it is not unreasonable to assume something physical that is uncaused - if we are positing a temporally finite universe. You can say I am stupid for saying such a thing - but it is at least and more plausible than suggesting the necessity of the supernatural. You obviously disagree - but this is not proof to the contrary. Claiming the universal immutability of cause and effect as proof is also special pleading or maybe just a bad inference, and so - unproven - as is your "proof".

    Summary - Special Pleading
    "Uncreated Creator" - but no to "Uncreated Nature"

    Circular Reasoning 1
    1) The uncreated Creator exists -> because 5a) an uncreated Creator exists

    2) And Is Jesus

    3) Jesus is divine because he was resurrected

    4) Because the Bible says 4a) -> I trust the Bible/Paul/writings implicitly (not physical proof)

    5) Based on the authority of God -> (i.e) 5a) God/ an uncreated Creator exists

    Circular Reasoning 2
    1) Sin decreasing proves Finite Universe which indicates God's existence
    2) Sin Decreasing because of Evolution of Consciousness
    3) Which is caused by God - (How can you prove this?)
    i.e. something (declared/asserted to be) caused by God indicates God's existence

    Assertion is not proof nor does further special pleading constitute a disproof of these points, but only shows the weakness of your position.

    Please don't ban me if there are spelling errors or formatting you don't like - simply mail me and I will come and edit them out.
    Last edited by Adam; 07-24-2009 at 05:48 AM. Reason: More spelling/punctuation/summary/ added link

  8. #128
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    banning me for False Teaching - 'Agnostic' - after inviting people to debate the proof for God seems sort of contradictory.
    How were you able to post this post if I banned you for false teaching? You're just trying to deceitful. You got an infraction for false teaching, but you don't get banned for it.

    This is usually where rational argument ends and belief and wishful thinking begin. This is the reason why the proof is not convincing to a non-believer, since they come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to.
    None of the points of the proof depend on assuming God exists first. Therefore, the reason why someone doesn't accept the proof is because it is their own free will and would prefer to go to Hell. Such irrationality and wishful thinking is special pleading, just hoping God doesn't exist so there is no accountability for your actions. You're repeating yourself, but not trying to back it up. You get an infraction for this. I am not here to cater to repetitive self-declarations, for they are mindless.

    For example, though I am happy to assume that the universe is not eternal for the sake of argument, the mechanism you suggest for proving it includes the idea of sin, which though you may not think so - is an exclusively religious idea, different from that of 'crime'. Also the mechanism you suggest, by your own admission is not explained by physical means alone - but by the intervention and plan of God. This would obviously invalidate the claim in the proof that it proves God from the physical alone, and also including the conclusion in the premises is a grievous error in any argument.
    The dictionary definition (and link to the dictionary) was given in the proof that had no religion or God mentioned as part of the definition. You obviously didn't read the proof. Crime exists because of sin. If there was no sin, there would be no crime. You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition. Infraction! You're boring. You're like a broken record.

    The mechanism can't be entirely physical, since nature can't cause itself. So there must be the uncreated which is supernatural. You mentioned there is a premise, but there are no premises for the proof which is why you couldn't cite any. The conclusion remains, the uncreated created, since nature proves it can't cause itself, nor always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience. You need not worry about how the exponential progression comes about, only that it is in fact observable.

    Another example of this is in Step 2. Without justification there is no reasonable basis for leaping to the conclusion that your creator needs to be the biblical God. As I have stated Testimony claiming Jesus as supernatural is not a form of physical proof. Claiming that God is uncreated - though you believe it and it is written in the Bible, is also not a form of physical proof - saying it is so because it is a must - is again - special pleading and not rational or logical argument.
    Step 2 doesn't jump to any conclusion. Embedded throughout the 4 Steps is the Minimal Facts Approach which proves Jesus is the God because you can't find a naturalistic explanation for His resurrection. This is a physical fact-a physical proof. The uncreated is proven by the physical proof that nothing in nature happens all by itself, so nature can't cause itself; therefore, the uncreated exists and this is whom we call God. You may have heard of Him through the millennia. He makes Himself readily understood and accessible even to you so you are without excuse. The Bible itself is a physical proof as well, for textual criticism on physical paper and ink have recorded the eyewitnesses testimonies right back to the source. Textual criticism is a very precise field of work. They can take the 25,000 Biblical manuscripts and identify the originals comparing one to the next all the way back. The more documents the better.

    These are two very good reasons why a non-believer will not consider your proof persuasive - since it requires them to already believe in some of the circular logic. Circular reasoning once accepted forms an unbroken loop where the end is also the beginning, whilst proper logical reasoning creates lines of reasoning and argument which encourages further investigation down an open line of enquiry. Such inquiry, especially scientific enquiry and logic are rules that help us from erring, and although they prevent one from finding the degree of certainty, that religions do choosing to follow these strictures gives one the sense that you are pursuing truth, even if it is unattainable in an absolute form.
    Your problem is you can't find any circular reasoning, for if you could, you would have been able to do so by now, you would think. But yourself, you suffer circular reasoning because you have assumptions which you can't back up, so all you can do is repeat yourself in a circle, because you are not dealing with those assumptions, by admitting you can't find any evidence for your assumptions. The truth of your mistaken assumptions is they are without foundation. Behaving this way is boring and it shows that you are not in any sense whatsoever on a path to pursuing truth.

    Steps three and four I feel do not add to the argument - but like your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. It seems to me that you are not truly interested in the logical rigor, or verisimilitude of the proof - which you would be if you considered the best way to be tenacious in your beliefs. It seems to me now that the proof and its posting is only a gambit, if this is so you need to work on your reply if you want a chance at winning the game. It is not enough to simply knock down all the pieces with a swipe of your hand as my small sister once did - by giving in to frustration you lose both the opportunity and joy of learning and mastery through practice and consideration.
    It gets boring to hear you say there is a contradiction, but you don't show it. Infraction. That stifles the conversation, because it is just mindless repetition without you making an effort to find evidence or to repent and relent a you realize you got nothing. So you're just being obstinate, but you know that. And so you can see Step 3 vitally adds to the Proof because so many times you have misrepresented Christ and the Proof. Furthermore, without Step 4, I would have to give you $10,000 because you could use the argument that there could be gods creating gods in the eternity of the past.

    Your behavior seems fake and pretentious to say the least without nothing underlying your accusation.You think this is a gambit, but God said it this proof and has always been there since the dawn of man. Indeed, God has a great advantage and so do those who are in Christ who give into reality and don't deny it as you do. This is not a game, but if it were, it would be already won, because I have already died in Christ. It is an accomplished fact. And there is no greater power than resurrection with Christ in the Holy Spirit and to have eternal life, for not only is it eternal blessings, but it is an ability to know God and have a relationship with Him, that which you are without. You sound frustrated lately which is why you are getting vaguer and vaguer in your comments. That's how Satan will tend to work, when he can't get anywhere with specifics. He'll work with vagaries. God established the proof and it is so simple. So don't make game of it and belittle it with endless vain words. That's just vanity of vanities!

    Also you have still failed to deal with the issue of cause and effect. Like gravity which we still call the 'Universal Law' of gravitation, Cause and Effect is not universal, as you claim. I can state that trillions of things everywhere are affected by gravity in a particular and quantifiable way. This would lead us to infer that it is the same everywhere - yet then we discover the exception and know that gravity is not universal as we thought it was - It merely described our lesser understanding of the universe at the time. Cause and effect is the same - the law is not immutable - and it is not unreasonable to assume something physical that is uncaused - if we are positing a temporally finite universe. You can say I am stupid for saying such a thing - but it is at least and more plausible than suggesting the necessity of the supernatural. You obviously disagree - but this is not proof to the contrary. Claiming the universal immutability of cause and effect as proof is also special pleading or maybe just a bad inference, and so - unproven - as is your "proof".
    Scientists don't think gravity just happens all by itself. You're delusional. However complicated gravity is, we observe what we know of it to abide in the law of cause and effect. You know that, but you shut your mind down to reality, so seek to alter reality unscientifically. It's really quite twisted your mindset. The law of cause and effect always abides in nature (what you call immutable)-for that is the preponderance of evidence that we have with nothing to suggest otherwise. Very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist. How accessible God makes Himself! Praise the Lord!

    It is quite unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence (not even an iota) for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature. Whether a universe is always existing or temporary makes no difference; it still requires a cause from one object to the next. I don't think I needed to say you are stupid for saying something could happen all by itself in nature. You said it yourself.

    You are special pleading, indeed, when you shut your mind down to trillions of cause and effects holding out for the hope one day you will find something happens all by itself. Don't you see how arrogant that is? You are claiming you have to be God in order to know if God exists. But that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God. And if you were, you would not exist if you could find proof something happened all by itself. You get an infraction for this continued approach, because you can't overturn the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects, and you are wasting our time. You've become a monotone or clanging bell.

    Summary - Special Pleading
    "Uncreated Creator" - but no to "Uncreated Nature"
    Nature proves it can't always have existed, due to the exponential progression of conscience, for mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does, and nature would have experienced far greater heat death. And of course, unconsciousness and that without a conscience can't produce that which has consciousness and a conscience. Can a bird house make a bird? The logic is clear and unrefuted. “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. You are special pleading. And you are desperate.

    Circular Reasoning 1
    1) The uncreated Creator exists -> because 5a) an uncreated Creator exists
    2) And Is Jesus
    3) Jesus is divine because he was resurrected
    4) Because the Bible says 4a) -> I trust the Bible/Paul/writings implicitly (not physical proof)
    5) Based on the authority of God -> (i.e) 5a) God/ an uncreated Creator exists
    The 4 Step Perfect Proof for God of the Bible doesn't use your claim God exists therefore God exists. We know Jesus is God because the text meets the highest of historical standards for ancient documents and multiple corroboration in history. Therefore, you can trust some things in the text such as the fact that Paul truly believed he saw Jesus resurrected and his creeds he got from the Apostles who said they say Jesus resurrected. That's why most skeptical scholars concede these points (for the breadth of the people and places involved), and forward the discussion to an explanation of what could account for their genuine beliefs they had seen Jesus alive from the dead. This is a physical proof from eyewitnesses and textually preserved physically on physical paper. In a court of law this would hold. For example, a lawyer who won 245 court cases in a row in the Guinness Book of Records, said that the best case he has ever seen is for the life, death, burial and resurrection of Jesus. A favorite Christian who is also a lawyer is John Warwick Montgomery. He's been on the John Ankerberg Show.

    Your circular reasoning is merely assuming things and then coming around and assuming them again after they have been proven faulty as you see by these responses, which I'm just repeating myself. This violates Board Etiquette #6.

    Circular Reasoning 2
    1) Sin decreasing proves Finite Universe which indicates God's existence
    2) Sin Decreasing because of Evolution of Consciousness
    3) Which is caused by God - (How can you prove this?)
    i.e. something (declared/asserted to be) caused by God indicates God's existence
    The 1st law of thermodynamics says the universe will never cease exist, so again, you are propose something, the universe will cease to exist, contrary to the evidence.

    What a strange theory to claim the exponential progression of conscience and reduction of sin points to a universe ceasing to exist. You don't make the connection, you just claim it. That's bizarre. Please, no mindless declared assertions. Try to find some evidence for your beliefs otherwise it is just blind faith.

    Why are you giving this "Circular Reasoning 2"--it's circular. It's your circular nonsense.

    I don't claim evolution of conscience, for that would be evolution, rather than evolving or progression. Obviously, there is a divine hand involved since evolution can't itself explain how it came into being to be able to replicate. Your evolutionary theory is an unsatisfactory explanation to say the least. Christians don't deny evolution, but we do recognize its limitations since it can't explain how it came into being.

    We don't need to prove the exponential progression of conscience is accomplished by God. We only need to observe it to prove that the universe was not always existing. Whether God exists or not, the exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have had an approximation to the eternity of the past to not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not listening.

    Assertion is not proof nor does further special pleading constitute a disproof of these points, but only shows the weakness of your position.

    Please don't ban me if there are spelling errors or formatting you don't like - simply mail me and I will come and edit them out.
    Since you couldn't show any special pleading and couldn't overturn the above points, as they have been discussed with you before, then you are still special pleading.

    I don't ban for spelling errors, unless of course I guess, if it is egregious and out of control.

    Each time you get an infraction it is explained why and has a time limit on it. If you are banned it will be for valid reason. I'll apply the above mentioned infractions now to your account.

    You're getting more and more ignorant, and you can probably tell that about yourself.

    Why not come to the table with a sincere and honest seeking heart, and if the evidence takes some place then be willing to go there.

  9. #129
    Adam Guest

    Default

    I was not trying to be "deceitful" your infractions are a type of temporary ban - since they require me to wait in order to post - stop misrepresenting my words - I did not say permanent ban.
    You're repeating yourself, but not trying to back it up. You get an infraction for this.
    That's because I was summarizing the argument, and conclusion that followed - as is normal in an introduction. Reasons followed in the rest of the post - whether you agreed with them or not - I offered reasoning. I didn't know I could receive an infraction for summarizing - or your boredom.

    The dictionary definition (and link to the dictionary) was given......You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition
    Crime exists because of sin. If there was no sin, there would be no crime. You're repeating yourself, but you don't overturn the definition. Infraction! You're boring.
    Words have multiple definitions in the dictionary. You cannot overturn a definition - it is a definition not an argument - yet words need to refer to real objects, in a physical proof - I was offering the more common and accepted meaning of the word sin. It is a religiously loaded word in both origins and common usage. If I repeat myself - it is only because I feel you are not answering me, only repeating the same things over and over again.

    Crime and sin are distinct. Some sins are not crimes, some crimes are not sins. Unless you have also redefined the word crime as being equivalent to sin - it is not.

    Crime depends upon the law of the society. Moral and judicial laws whilst sharing much in common are different. For example - an acceptable form of punishment in some American states, Communist countries and theocracies is capital punishment.
    Murder is a sin, yet someone may be punished for the crime of murder...by murdering them - in a "lawful" fashion - this is the most succinct example I can think of, though I have others if you do not find this one acceptable. Sin is not the cause of crime - they are both judgments somewhat dependent on precepts (and a little bit on bias) of what is and is not acceptable behavior.

    You mentioned there is a premise, but there are no premises for the proof which is why you couldn't cite any. The conclusion remains, the uncreated created, since nature proves it can't cause itself, nor always have been existing due to the exponential progression of conscience. You need not worry about how the exponential progression comes about, only that it is in fact observable.
    There are premises for your proof - i.e. the points that you say lead to your conclusions - are the premises - I cited them and pointed out flaws in them.

    Since you are using exponential progression, as a mechanism for one of the premises in Step ,1 I do need to worry about whence it came - especially since you say it comes about by God rather than physical means - which is a logical flaw in the Proof since this is the proof's ultimate conclusion, contained in a premise.

    nature can't cause itself.
    I say it can, and you have yet to prove otherwise, saying that everything physical has a cause - likewise - needs to be proven - not merely claimed.

    It gets boring to hear you say there is a contradiction, but you don't show it. Infraction.
    Your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. Lines of thought like say - giving me a general infraction for "False teaching agnostic" - agnostic being one who disputes, or disbelieves your proof. Clear enough contradiction?

    Step 3 vitally adds to the Proof because so many times you have misrepresented Christ and the Proof. Furthermore, without Step 4, I would have to give you $10,000 because you could use the argument that there could be gods creating gods in the eternity of the past.
    They do not add to the proof because God is said to be proven by the end of Step 2.
    Step 4 only seeks to prevent someone arguing with the special pleading involved, asking how you justify saying "God is uncreated", or challenging you by asking why can't there be a multitude of Gods.

    Just saying that one cannot argue in a certain way - is not a valid form of logic - and is no answer to the questions posed. I have avoided this argument since you clearly would refuse to answer it, (probably since by the nature of the question it cannot be answered) - to the point of saying so in the proof itself with an entire step.
    Maybe if the question of prize money was not an issue - you would be willing to admit to flaws, rather than ignoring them.



    It is quite unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature. Whether a universe is always existing or temporary makes no difference; it still requires a cause from one object to the next.....the hope one day you will find something happens all by itself. Don't you see how arrogant that is? You are claiming you have to be God in order to know if God exists. But that is self-contradictory because obviously you are not God.

    And if you were, you would not exist if you could find proof something happened all by itself. You get an infraction for this continued approach, because you can't overturn the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects, and you are wasting our time.
    Could God prove he "happened all by itself", and if yes, by your logic not exist.

    I agree it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature." It's a good thing I am not assuming there is something physically uncaused in nature - You however, are. And having just admitted this to be unreasonable, since you offer no evidence for suggesting why something should be without physical cause, or why it would be contrary to the trillions of other objects that require no supernatural interference.I guess I have won the argument, Yes?

    I only said that you cannot prove otherwise, and assuming something uncaused in nature is more logical and reasonable than the "supernatural" causes - which is senseless.

    The question of eternity does make a difference - if the universe was eternal - the idea of a first cause is senseless.

    "the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects" . Again, like gravity, saying it is widespread does not prove it immutable, or without exception, very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist.This is a flaw in your proof. I am not trying to overturn this "preponderance" nor do I need to - please remove the infractions you have given to me mistakenly, and stop wasting my time with them.

    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.” - Arthur Conan Doyle. You are special pleading. And you are desperate.
    No you are special pleading, by saying God is uncreated, whilst disallowing that other things are uncreated. In no way is this special pleading on my part. I am not desperate I merely want you to recognize your special pleading, and stop avoiding and misrepresenting my criticisms of the Proof.

    Answer this one thing - Regardless of Step 4 is there any proof that God is uncreated? The answer is no - that's why it is special pleading.

    This is a physical proof from eyewitnesses and textually preserved physically on physical paper. In a court of law this would hold. For example, a lawyer
    I still dispute Step 3, no matter how physical the paper it is written on is - a written account will never be a form of physical evidence for an event (unless you're trying to prove the account itself exists - which I accept) - Accept this and accept that your proof is flawed, it is not based upon physical proof - but trust and faith in written accounts and testimony. A Christian lawyer would say that though wouldn't he.

    What a strange theory to claim the exponential progression of conscience and reduction of sin points to a universe ceasing to exist. You don't make the connection, you just claim it. That's bizarre. Please, no mindless declared assertions. Try to find some evidence for your beliefs otherwise it is just blind faith.
    Finite past, not finite future - stop misrepresenting what I say. I agree strongly with your last point.

    I don't claim evolution of conscience, for that would be evolution, rather than evolving or progression. Obviously, there is a divine hand involved since evolution can't itself explain how it came into being to be able to replicate. Your evolutionary theory is an unsatisfactory explanation to say the least. Christians don't deny evolution, but we do recognize its limitations since it can't explain how it came into being.

    We don't need to prove the exponential progression of conscience is accomplished by God. We only need to observe it to prove that the universe did not always exist. Whether God exists or not, the exponential progression of conscience disallows an eternity of the past of cause and effects because mankind would have had an approximation to the eternity of the past to not still be sinning to the extent we still do. Alas, I am repeating myself, and you are not listening.
    Evolution is a process not a thing - so does not require an "explanation of how it came into being." It's physical mechanisms however, are clearly described for anyone who cares to learn about it.

    You know my criticism of "exponential progression of conscience" yet ignore it.
    Man has not existed for eternity
    Is not clearly less sinful
    Sin is not a physical object - but a judgment.
    Human sinfulness is irrelevant to physical questions of eternity.
    and the most damning point for your proof is your explanation of its mechanism as being through God, not by physical means.

    More so - I am guessing what you consider sinful is based at least in part of what is described as such in the Bible. The entire idea is an irrational quagmire of nonsense.

    Your circular reasoning is merely assuming things and then coming around and assuming them again after they have been proven faulty as you see by these responses, which I'm just repeating myself. This violates Board Etiquette #6.......you are not dealing with those assumptions, by admitting you can't find any evidence for your assumptions. The truth of your mistaken assumptions is they are without foundation. Behaving this way is boring and it shows that you are not in any sense whatsoever on a path to pursuing truth.
    I am glad you understand what circular reasoning is and how frustrating it is to argue with someone who employs it. Show me where my reasoning is circular - don't simply accuse me of it.

  10. #130
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Church of
    Sherwood Park
    Posts
    3,515
    Blog Entries
    30
    Rep Power
    26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Adam View Post
    I was not trying to be "deceitful" your infractions are a type of temporary ban - since they require me to wait in order to post - stop misrepresenting my words - I did not say permanent ban.
    Words are meant for a reason. Banning is banning. Moderation is moderation. There is no moderation that is a banning. You are just being careless with your words because you are trying to be deceitful. #3 Carelessness.

    That's because I was summarizing the argument, and conclusion that followed - as is normal in an introduction. Reasons followed in the rest of the post - whether you agreed with them or not - I offered reasoning. I didn't know I could receive an infraction for summarizing - or your boredom.
    Everything you presented in that post was repeating what you had said before in a previous post, thus not dealing with the responses handed to you. And you give no indication of an opening summary, but you said, the reason you were banned (which you weren't) was because you are agnostic whom "come to the proof without prior belief in God, on which some of the points depend on or at least allude to" for Christians. But you have said this before and failed before to show this allegation. In your post you don't show it either or present arguments for your case.

    Words have multiple definitions in the dictionary. You cannot overturn a definition - it is a definition not an argument - yet words need to refer to real objects, in a physical proof - I was offering the more common and accepted meaning of the word sin. It is a religiously loaded word in both origins and common usage. If I repeat myself - it is only because I feel you are not answering me, only repeating the same things over and over again.
    It doesn't matter what definition you want to use, for the 4 Step Proof is committed to the definition that is without first assuming God. This is already stated in the Proof, we have already talked about it, so why overlook this fact? This is the answer which you keep shutting your mind down to, so you get an infraction for being a mindless drone. #6 Unspecific.

    The reason you are repeating yourself mindlessly is because you are being ignorant and shutting your mind down to reality of the Proof. There is actually no better word to describe the condition. The word is "sin." Accept it.

    Crime and sin are distinct. Some sins are not crimes, some crimes are not sins. Unless you have also redefined the word crime as being equivalent to sin - it is not.
    All crimes are due to sin. Whether the sin is big or small it is still a sin. Therefore, since crime doesn't happen all by itself and we can see all crimes are due to sin, we are confident sin exists. It would take a very evil man even you to admit that sin doesn't exist. That only shows you how corrupted your heart is and why Hell was created for those such as yourself.

    Crime depends upon the law of the society. Moral and judicial laws whilst sharing much in common are different. For example - an acceptable form of punishment in some American states, Communist countries and theocracies is capital punishment.
    No matter the punishment for the crime, the crime exists because of sin.

    Murder is a sin, yet someone may be punished for the crime of murder...by murdering them - in a "lawful" fashion - this is the most succinct example I can think of, though I have others if you do not find this one acceptable. Sin is not the cause of crime - they are both judgments somewhat dependent on precepts (and a little bit on bias) of what is and is not acceptable behavior.
    You admit sin exists so stop arguing against it. For the purpose of the Proof since sin exists, mankind would not still be sinning to the extent he still does due to the exponential progression of conscience. We are only using the objective morals across all societies that deem something to be a crime to indicate the cause being a sin. The breaking of a law is the crime, but the breaking of the law doesn't happen all by itself. It is due to sin, for a sin is acquiescence to temptation to do something wrong.

    There are premises for your proof - i.e. the points that you say lead to your conclusions - are the premises - I cited them and pointed out flaws in them.
    You haven't been able to show any premises. I have responded to all your points showing you your mistaken assumptions. Therefore, instead of responding in kind, you just declare your assertion mindlessly. #1 Bearing False Witness.

    Since you are using exponential progression, as a mechanism for one of the premises in Step ,1 I do need to worry about whence it came - especially since you say it comes about by God rather than physical means - which is a logical flaw in the Proof since this is the proof's ultimate conclusion, contained in a premise.
    For the purpose of the Proof it does not depend on how it comes about, only that we observe in nature. And because we observe it in nature, we know it is really happening and can use it as evidence to show us what it is pointing to, that nature couldn't have always been existing. Your mistaken assumption is an epistemology argument, which has no bearing on the ontological argument of the proof. It is irrelevant how it comes to be for sake of the Proof, but we do observe it happening.

    I say it can, and you have yet to prove otherwise, saying that everything physical has a cause - likewise - needs to be proven - not merely claimed.
    #5 Overassuming. We have talked about this before. Your claiming you have to be God to know if God exists, but that is impossible, since you know you did not always exist or were uncreated. Therefore, all you need is a preponderance of evidence and we have that with trillions of things with causes in nature and nothing shown to be without a cause.

    Your infractions - only seek to stifle, and silence the lines of thought that contradict the proof. Lines of thought like say - giving me a general infraction for "False teaching agnostic" - agnostic being one who disputes, or disbelieves your proof. Clear enough contradiction?

    #1 False Accuser. It can hardly be said it is in dispute, for you only repeat yourself, rather than dealing with the responses. I am just repeating myself to your repetitions. You need to respond to the points, for example, it is impossible for you to be God. You have presented no lines of thought that contradict the proof. You're actually agreeing with the Proof and condemning yourself to Hell by rejecting it. The infraction, therefore, is fully justified and warranted to help you realize your condition.

    They do not add to the proof because God is said to be proven by the end of Step 2.
    You're misreading Step 2. God is proven not just in Step 2 in the area it is addressing, but Step 1 also, for you need to show not just the universe can't happen all by itself, but it can't always be existing in the natural. Step 4 is required because there can be the argument of infinite regress prior to the universe. Step 3 is needed because the main argument used against God of the Bible is bearing false witness against Him. Of course that is no argument, but Step 3 is stated to address it a serious issue. If the sin of bearing false witness was not the main method we would only need a 3 Step Proof. Since atheists/agnostics/Muslims/Hindus/etc. feel this is a valid argument, Step 3 shows it is not.

    Step 4 only seeks to prevent someone arguing with the special pleading involved, asking how you justify saying "God is uncreated", or challenging you by asking why can't there be a multitude of Gods.
    Special pleading is wrong, so Step 4 disallows special pleading you can just assume infinite regress of gods or multiple gods, for there would be heat death and mankind would not still be sinning to the extent it still does. Therefore, there is the uncreated Creator. If you want to argue multiple uncreated that argument fails because there is nothing to justify God+1. Whatever the outcome, it is still God and God creating which destroys your argument for an always existing universe. You'd be contradicting yourself. Which is doubleminded.

    Just saying that one cannot argue in a certain way - is not a valid form of logic - and is no answer to the questions posed. I have avoided this argument since you clearly would refuse to answer it, (probably since by the nature of the question it cannot be answered) - to the point of saying so in the proof itself with an entire step.
    You didn't say what that question is you posed so it is irrelevant, but your point fails, since you can't contradict yourself when you argue. That is a certain way of arguing that is unethical. That is not a valid form of logic. The point of Step 3 is don't misrepresent the God of the Bible. Whatever argument you want to use, if it misrepresents God, then your argument fails out the gate. You'd be arguing against something else, not God of the Bible.

    Maybe if the question of prize money was not an issue - you would be willing to admit to flaws, rather than ignoring them.
    Between you and me let's forget about the money then. Since you don't point out any flaws as of yet, then doesn't that indicate you are mistaken? How posts has it been now, and the best you can do is repeat already disproven ideas (which were already presented by previous posters to you).

    Maybe your lust for money disallows you from being wrong.

    Could God prove he "happened all by itself", and if yes, by your logic not exist.
    #1 Bearing False Witness. God never claimed to happen all by Himself. He claims He always existed. You are violating Step 3 of the Proof by arguing against something else that is not God. Boring! Do you see how mindless your argument is when you start from a mistaken assumption? You have no option of being God, but if God exists, He can be God. He can prove all things and hold out for the last thing man did not know for Him to be God. If that were His approach of showing and proving He knows all things.

    I agree it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature when you have no evidence for your theory and it goes completely contrary to the trillions of pieces of evidence we do have for causes in nature." It's a good thing I am not assuming there is something physically uncaused in nature - You however, are. And having just admitted this to be unreasonable, since you offer no evidence for suggesting why something should be without physical cause, or why it would be contrary to the trillions of other objects that require no supernatural interference.I guess I have won the argument, Yes?
    #1 Bearing False Witness. Step 2 shows something in nature can't happen all by itself, so you are sinning bearing false witness when you said, "I am not assuming there is something uncaused in nature - You however, are." Do realize how unethical you are being? You violating the prophetic word of your unethical behavior in #6 Unspecific where a person contradicts himself with a doubletongue and holds two sides of the story. You just quoted me saying, it is "unreasonable to assume something is uncaused in nature...." You keep arguing for something happening in nature all by itself throughout your posts, for you keep arguing against Step 2 of the proof, the preponderance of evidence for trillions of things with causes, and you admit you have to be God to know if God exists as you hold out for a proof something can happen all by itself. That's crazy. I believe you are being purposefully unethical and immoral. I have never met an ethical atheists or agnostic.

    I only said that you cannot prove otherwise, and assuming something uncaused in nature is more logical and reasonable than the "supernatural" causes - which is senseless.
    The preponderance of evidence is proof, and your argument is faulty because you insist you have to be God to know if God exists. That's just self-worship. Your "assuming something uncaused in nature" is not more logical or reasonable because of the preponderance of evidence. It is quite clear no such discovery will ever be made with trillions of causes in nature and no evidence for something happening all by itself. You lose. For something to happen all by itself like magic is senseless. But God creating out of His glory is completely sensible and full of life and purpose, for He creates out of His glory to have a relationship with His children and damns those such yourself who want to be eternally separated from God. We have His justice, love, holiness, mercy and everlasting friendship.

    The question of eternity does make a difference - if the universe was eternal - the idea of a first cause is senseless.
    You don't say why it is senseless. It would seem you not having a reason is itself senseless. But if the universe is eternal in the future it is because God wants an eternal relationship. It would be senseless if it always existed in the past, for how can that which is without consciousness and conscience create that with consciousness and conscience. Can a bird house create a bird? Of course not. You're embarrassing yourself. #5 Self-declaring.

    "the preponderance of evidence for cause and effects" . Again, like gravity, saying it is widespread does not prove it immutable, or without exception, very simple. Very sweet. So that anyone could understand, and you don't have to be a great scientist.This is a flaw in your proof. I am not trying to overturn this "preponderance" nor do I need to - please remove the infractions you have given to me mistakenly, and stop wasting my time with them.
    I am not saying gravity takes hold everywhere and did not come from something else or will not change into something else, but all we do see are causes, no non-causes in nature. You need to overturn the preponderance of evidence, but since you don't think you need to and it is the key to the Proof, then you are saying you don't need to disprove the Proof to disprove the Proof. That's goofy. I would be happy to remove any infraction you incurred if you could show it was not correct. The infraction serves a purpose, so you are wasting your time not heeding them. When discussing a particular infraction, please be specific and quote the infraction given so I can address it with you. Don't assume I know what you are talking about, after all as we have seen you like to bear false witness and change the story. Be specific.

    Stop complaining about infractions but not showing they are unwarranted. #9 Frivolousness.

    No you are special pleading, by saying God is uncreated, whilst disallowing that other things are uncreated. In no way is this special pleading on my part. I am not desperate I merely want you to recognize your special pleading, and stop avoiding and misrepresenting my criticisms of the Proof.
    You are getting the cart before the horse. Since the uncreated is proven, I look to see who is the uncreated. Jesus claimed to be the uncreated as God. He proved it by His resurrection which you could not disprove the multiple eyewitness testimony. So you are admitting Jesus is God, but you are free to reject Him which you do which is why you are going to Hell. Your choice. Nobody to blame but yourself. Since none can compare to Christ, Jesus is God by His resurrection. You're special pleading instead of seeing you can't disprove the resurrection and can't show anyone else is better, for a loving God personally pays for ours sins which only God could do. Every other religion or belief system is works based, but how can a sinner save himself? Every other belief is delusional.

    Answer this one thing - Regardless of Step 4 is there any proof that God is uncreated? The answer is no - that's why it is special pleading.
    Step 4 proves the uncreated exists and who this is. It is Jesus and He says He is God and proves He is uncreated by His resurrection. So God exists. You could not overturn the argument of Step 4. If you don't understand, I would be happy to repeat it for the umpteenth time in our discussions.

    I still dispute Step 3, no matter how physical the paper it is written on is - a written account will never be a form of physical evidence for an event (unless you're trying to prove the account itself exists - which I accept) - Accept this and accept that your proof is flawed, it is not based upon physical proof - but trust and faith in written accounts and testimony. A Christian lawyer would say that though wouldn't he.
    Since the account itself is proven by the highest of historical standards and preserved physically on paper, it proves the resurrection of Jesus since you admit you can't find a naturalistic explanation. You would have to throw out every historical person in history according to your approach which is just mindless belligerency. People don't doubt Tiberius lived but Jesus has 4x the amount of documentation within the first 150 years of their deaths. Obviously historians don't go your route. I don't think you understand Step 3. Step 3 is simply just saying whatever argument you do use, don't misrepresent God of the Bible. For example, if you are arguing against a modalistic Jesus, then you are not arguing against God of the Bible. A Christian lawyer would agree. You can't deny every human being in history. That's goofy. But you can trust peoples' testimony if it is substantiated, corroborated and unexplainable naturalistically to be able to explain away the conclusion: Jesus was raised from the dead because He is God.

    Finite past, not finite future - stop misrepresenting what I say. I agree strongly with your last point.
    The first law of thermodynamics says your theory is false. Science disagrees with you. That which exists can't cease to exist. If you agree blind faith is wrong, then don't cling to the blind faith of agnosticism, for it goes against the evidence of the 4 Step Proof for God.

    Evolution is a process not a thing - so does not require an "explanation of how it came into being." It's physical mechanisms however, are clearly described for anyone who cares to learn about it.
    If evolution is "not a thing" as you said, then it can't always have been existing because like all processes, they require a beginning, a first cause. Take for example the process of decay. It doesn't happen all by itself, but a process commences. All the mechanisms, the cause and effects, in nature have a cause (based on preponderance of causes), so the first event of all mechanisms also require a cause since you admit it is a process. Even if it is a thing, it still requires a cause, for what thing comes into being all by itself? Nothing. Learn about the universe, don't learn about it for the purpose to try to disprove God, for that is vanity of vanities! Learn about it to glorify God and learn about His wonderful creation in all its complexity. That's what the greatest scientists who were Christians did. God is truly amazing!

    You know my criticism of "exponential progression of conscience" yet ignore it.
    Man has not existed for eternity
    Is not clearly less sinful
    Sin is not a physical object - but a judgment.
    Human sinfulness is irrelevant to physical questions of eternity.
    and the most damning point for your proof is your explanation of its mechanism as being through God, not by physical means.
    I have responded to all your points including all your responses to the exponential progression of conscience. Don't #1 Bear false witness that I have not. You need to prove it, otherwise you are sinning.

    Man not having existed for eternity doesn't disprove Step 1 of the Proof, for man would not still be sinning to the extent he still does if there was an eternity of the past of cause and effects in which man would approximate into that past. Man is clearly on a per capita basis sinning less now than over the past six thousand years. This is our evidence. That sin is not a physical object, nor a judgment-for not all sins get judged-does not disprove the fact of the exponential progression of conscience, but is key towards it. It doesn't need to be physical to prove its existence and application to prove God exists. Human sinfulness is the key to the question of infinite regress of the past, for mankind would not still be sinning by now to the extent he still does. How do we know the universe is done by God, because nature can't exist on its own. This damns your position and yourself to Hell, because unless you come to Christ as a helpless sinner, there is no other name under heaven by which you can be saved (having proved the resurrection).

    More so - I am guessing what you consider sinful is based at least in part of what is described as such in the Bible. The entire idea is an irrational quagmire of nonsense.
    You are repeating yourself mindlessly. The definition that is used for sin for the Proof is that which everyone agrees objectively is just plain wrong. #6 Clanging. We have discussed this already many times.

    I am glad you understand what circular reasoning is and how frustrating it is to argue with someone who employs it. Show me where my reasoning is circular - don't simply accuse me of it.
    I have shown in point by point how your reasoning is circular, time and time again, response to quote after quote, after quote. This is the summary of your faulty brain. This is evidence that a person who is going to Hell and who will spend an eternity in Hell does not care about reality, evidence and the truth. He only cares about this:

    Some guys arguing on a train headed towards the train station, still keep arguing when the arrive and when they get off and go to their respective towns. When in their towns they are still arguing. Eventually, because of so much arguing they go off into the horizon and there off in the distance they build a shack and keep repeating themselves "I told you so." That is your condition. Your eternity will be in Hell with this mentality.

    Whereas Christians are in agreement, born-again, members of the body of Christ and have such great joy and blessings you could never know in your condition.

    Praise the Lord!

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 4 Step Proof for God & Minimal Facts Approach
    By Churchwork in forum Minimal Facts Approach
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-02-2016, 08:31 PM
  2. Regarding the 4 Step Proof for God
    By Marquis Naryshkin in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-07-2011, 10:08 PM
  3. Questions About the 4 Step Proof
    By Silverhammer in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-14-2011, 05:07 PM
  4. 4 Step Proof for God - True or False?
    By whatisup in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-25-2011, 05:41 PM
  5. My Issues With the 4 Step Proof for God
    By adrian in forum Atheist/Agnostic
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-29-2007, 02:49 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •